EDUCAUSE | Contributed by Organizations or Campuses; Articles, Papers, and Reports; and Patents

Patent Office Rejects Blackboard's E-Learning Patent in Preliminary Ruling

ckeller — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:33:16 -0500

"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued a preliminary decision that rejects all 44 claims Blackboard Inc. made regarding the controversial patent it was granted for an online-learning system. If upheld, the decision could have sweeping ramifications for Blackboard's competitors and universities that use course-management software. "

Jury Sides With Blackboard in Patent Case

ckeller — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:26:30 -0600

A federal jury in Texas recently awarded the learning services giant Blackboard $3.1 million in its patent infringement lawsuit against a much smaller competitor, adding a new layer of complexity and uncertainty to a complex, uncertain market for higher education learning management systems.

The State of Tech Transfer

ckeller — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:51:42 -0600

"As research spending at colleges has risen, so too has the number of new products that emerge from the campuses, according to an annual review of academic intellectual property licensing activities."

Ending the Intellectual Property Frenzy

ckeller — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:05:03 -0600

New president of Rochester Institute of Technology proposes alternate way for academe to support business and the economy — and it involves admitting that your institution won’t have a big windfall.

Online-learning patent dispute heats up

ckeller — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:05:12 -0500

The patent dispute heats up between enterprise software makers Blackboard Inc. and Desire2Learn Inc. over patent rights that Blackboard was granted in January 2006 for its course-management software and other eLearning products.

Bringing Peer Review to Patents

ckeller — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:39:04 -0500

Tougher examination of patent applications reduces anti–commons effects while reducing the frequency and costs of litigation. Modelled after open source/free software collaborations, the “Peer to Patent” initiative seeks to improve the quality of patents by developing a Web–based infrastructure whereby volunteer experts external to the PTO’s review applications, assemble prior art information, and submit the results of their collective work back to the Patent Office examiner. This paper endorses the spirit and goals of the “Peer to Patent” initiative, but questions its reliance on the open source model. A discussion of the functions of peer review, the meaning of peer, and the motivations of the reviewers in different contexts indicates that editorial peer review — not open source — can provide a more effective model for integrating peer review of patent applications into PTO practices.

Cyberinfrastructure and Patent Thickets: Challenges and Responses

ckeller — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:07:09 -0500

This article presents a survey of responses to patent thickets. The first group involves efforts to either keep questionable patents from ever issuing or removing them from patent space after they have issued — in particular, the “Peer–to–Patent” project, also known as “Community Patent Review.” Proposed by Professor Beth Noveck (2006) and subsequently incorporated into a pilot project by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Peer–to–Patent will use distributed online communities to assist in the review of patents for questions of novelty and obviousness and by enabling a virtual community of practice in a field to suggest prior art to the patent examiner. Its success will depend on the ability to leverage developments in cyberinfrastructure in the areas of Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW) and information retrieval. This article also suggests extending Peer–to–Patent into the realm of patent reexamination and post–grant opposition, which are mechanisms that can remove invalid patents once they have been issued.

Intellectual Property and Cyberinfrastructure

ckeller — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:47:25 -0500

The development of a new generation of cyberinfrastructure promises to increase and facilitate globally distributed scientific collaboration as well as access to scientific research via computer networks. But the potential for such access and collaboration is subject to concerns regarding the intellectual property rights that will be associated with networked data and with networked collaborative activity. Intellectual property regimes are generally problematic in the practice of science, because scientific research typically assumes practices of openness that may be hampered or obstructed by intellectual property rights. These difficulties are likely to be exacerbated in the context of networked collaboration, where the development and use of intellectual resources will likely be distributed among many researchers in a variety of physical locations, often spanning national boundaries. Such issues may be addressed by a combination of public and private approaches, including amendment of U.S. law to recognize transborder collaborative work, and adoption of clarifying contractual agreements among those who are collaborating via cyberinfrastructure, including cautious adaptation of “viral” licensing from the open source coding community.

What’s Wrong with the Patent System? Fuzzy Boundaries and the Patent Tax

ckeller — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:26:10 -0500

The authors provide evidence that software patents have more severe boundary problems and generate greater litigation costs than most other patents. Software patents tend to perform badly because the associated property rights are often expressed quite abstractly. The problem of mapping words to technology is difficult for any kind of technology, but it is especially difficult for software inventions because of the abstract nature of the technology. The problem has been made worse because when the courts have considered software inventions they have relaxed patent law doctrines that work to limit abstraction in other areas of technology. As a result, patent–based property rights to software inventions are not tethered to a specific device or to a specific physical or chemical process. Ironically, verbal descriptions corresponding to precise mathematical representations may be ambiguous; this is because of the inherent abstraction of the mathematical representations.

Easing Friction Over Tech Transfer

ckeller — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:05:14 -0500

"How publicly funded research will be brought to market for the next quarter-decade was the topic of a House of Representatives hearing on Tuesday (July 17th), with panelists representing research institutions, universities and high-tech industries. None of them disputed the impact of the law, and in fact no one giving testimony seemed to like the idea of changing the legislation (or passing more of it). But they didn’t say it was perfect. "